|
The Oldest Man posted:One of the traps of progressivism and its ideological incoherence is that its proponents are very, very easily co-opted, bought off, and otherwise neutralized by the liberal consensus. Progressives have no ideological foundation on which to fall back to test a proposed policy or compromise, no sniff test to give a consistent yes or no to the questions, "is this good enough? is this really aligned with my values? will accepting this compromise move the polity closer to my goals, or will it expend whatever leverage I have for nothing and take me off the board?" I think the thing you're missing is anyone I know who identifies as a progressive usually uses real-world results as a barometer for whether they support a position vs. ideology. The most common thing you'll hear from progressives isn't about how things fit into an ideological framework, it's finding actual successes and trying to emulate them, like adopting programs from Scandinavian countries to reduce income inequality. I don't think this is any less valid than approaching everything from a 100% ideological lens. It's perfectly coherent to say what you are for is reducing income inequality, ensuring a decent standard of living for everyone, etc. and utilizing whatever mechanisms help you achieve the actual results you want, regardless of what ideological framework they fit into. enki42 fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Nov 13, 2020 |
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:look, the social democrats you talk about (nordic capitalists) are a tiny group in politics, and leftists are an even smaller one I think a large part of the progressive labeling in the first place is an effort to distinguish socdems from moderate liberals. You're right that it's not currently a large wing of the U.S. Democratic party, I don't think anyone is arguing that progressives are dominant. I suppose you can include socialists (in the actual sense, not the Bernie socdem sense) under the progressive wing - in my experience they usually prefer to just call themselves socialists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:This is probably horribly naïve but right now I'm convinced that the best way forward is to destroy the two-party system and the best way to destroy the two-party system is Ranked Choice Voting initiatives. Doesn't ranked choice tend to favour compromise, centrist parties? (and therefore encourages a very small number of "big-tent" parties that are marginally acceptable to everyone). That's always how it's been viewed in Canada, where most folks advocate for proportional representation instead so that non-centrist viewpoints get a voice and there's fewer opportunities for majority governments with minimal checks on their power.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It favors centrist compromise GOVERNMENTS, but indirectly through a multiparty system. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure the main difference between ranked choice and proportional is that ranked choice preserves districts and is thus not perfectly proportional. So it's inferior, but in the specific context of the United States it would probably be more palatable than straight proportional because it wouldn't be as big a change and might actually be the only constitutional method There's some proportional systems that maintain districts, like mixed member proportional, but that necessitates adding extra party list members that didn't get elected to districts, which I could see being a total clusterfuck of corruption in the U.S.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2020 18:44
|
|